Hacker News Reader

Comment by bagels | Hacker News Reader

I think that stretches what it means for a company to "be" a 125b company, but that is still awful.

They are a pension fund; they literally had/have US$125 billion dollars under management. What exactly is being stretched here? I can't for the life of me think of something that qualifies more for being a 125b company than actually having 125b in assets.

Companies are described by revenue. UniSuper made $110 million recently. It deceptive to use the assets managed as the size since it makes it look like a much larger company. NVIDIA has revenue of $130 billion. $125 billion revenue would make it the largest company in Australia by a good amount.

That's fair, but if I'm a fund that can literally write a check the size of my endowment, why is that not a demonstration of my value? That's not finance 101, but you get to it later on.

Having assets under management doesn't mean you have that money. You don't own it, you are just taking care of it for somebody. When describing a company as an $X billion company, conventionally this is referring to the market cap. You could use it to describe other things they possess if you wanted to, but assets they manage will never be something they possess.

Ok, so we're engaging in sophistry. Got it.

Language is a communication tool. If you misuse language you will be badly understood. The solution is to use the correct word for what you mean, not to accuse others of sophistry.

How about 'pedantry'. I'd go with 'condescending', but that was clearly your intent.

People misunderstood your original reply. Correcting you is not pedantry.

> I can't for the life of me think of something that qualifies more for being a 125b company than actually having 125b in assets.

Which this company didn't. They managed 125b of assets belonging to other people, they didn't have 125b of their own.

Another solid C in finance. Congrats.

They have 125b they can literally write a check against and allocate any way they want as long as it delivers an adequate return and doesn't piss off the shareholders. Other than sophistry, what's the difference?

> They have 125b they can literally write a check against and allocate any way they want as long as it delivers an adequate return and doesn't piss off the shareholders.

No they don't. The pension regulator sets very restrictive controls on what they can do with that 125b, because it's neither the company's nor the shareholders' money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com